So this is the other side of the Right, eh? Not bad; though of course nothing like as classy as the hushed, oak-paneled,Chambers-of-Commerce-financed precincts of Conservatism Inc.,whose entrance is now barred against me by an angel with a flaming sword. The furnishings are a bit cheesy in fact, if you look too closely, which of course you shouldn’t. Do those drapes really match that carpet?

Nice people, though—most of whom, truth be told, I’ve known for a decade or more. And after watching Conservatism Inc. for a quarter of a century running along behind History’s great rumbling juggernaut squealing “Would you mind slowing down just a teeny bit, please?” there is always the faint hope that this other crowd might actually turn us back some way towards liberty, sovereignty, science, constitutionalism.

But who are they—I mean, we? What do we call ourselves?

For a special-interest website like VDARE.com this is not really a problem: “Immigration Patriot” is sufficiently accurate.

VDARE.com occupies a corner of the non-Conservatism Inc. spectrum, though, and publishes commentary from other corners thereof, and it would be nice to have a definitive name for the whole shebang—something a little less defined-by-exclusion than “non-Conservatism Inc.”

“Alternative Right” has been snaffled by Richard Spencer, all good luck to him. “Paleoconservative” has come to have a whiff of incense and cassocks about it, at least to me. I have tried to float“Oppositional Right,” but it’s a bit of a mouthful.

The enemies of conservatism are eager to supply their own nomenclature. “White Supremacist” seems to be their current favorite. It is meant maliciously, of course, to bring up images of fire-hoses, attack dogs, pick handles, and segregated lunch counters—to imply that conservatives, especially non-mainstream conservatives, are cruel people with dark thoughts.

Leaving aside the intended malice, I actually think “White Supremacist” is not bad semantically. White supremacy, in the sense of a society in which key decisions are made by white Europeans, is one of the better arrangements History has come up with. There have of course been some blots on the record, but I don’t see how it can be denied that net-net, white Europeans have made a better job of running fair and stable societies than has any other group.

Non-white supremacy is after all the rule over much of the world, from entire continental spaces like sub-Saharan Africa to individualblack-run or mestizo-run municipalities in the U.S.A. I see no great floods into these places by refugees desperate to escape the horrors of white supremacy.

We should not let our enemies dictate vocabulary to us, though. In any case, the Whatever Right contains many separatists—who, far from wanting to lord it over nonwhites, just want to get away from them.

“White Nationalist,” which has a fairly healthy currency here on the Whadda-We-Call-Ourselves Right, strikes me as even more problematical. What is the nation to which “nationalist” is the referent? “White” isn’t a nation, nor likely to become one.

I am of course aware of the much chewed-over distinction between nationalism and patriotism, first aired I think by Orwell, then taken up by Russell Kirk, the bloke who is supposed to have said—and you can register a skeptical background harrumph from me here—that “I am deeply patriotic, but I don’t have a nationalist bone in my body.”

I don’t mind the word “white” in either of those expressions. Conservatism, Inc. or otherwise, is a white people’s movement, a scattering of outliers notwithstanding.

Always has been, always will be. I have attended at least a hundred conservative gatherings, conferences, cruises, and jamborees: let me tell you, there ain’t too many raisins in that bun. I was in and out of the National Review offices for twelve years, and the only black person I saw there, other than when Herman Cain came calling, was Alex, the guy who runs the mail room. (Hey, Alex!)

This isn’t because conservatism is hostile to blacks and mestizos. Very much the contrary, especially in the case of Conservatism Inc. They fawn over the occasional nonwhite with a puppyish deference that fairly fogs the air with embarrassment. (Q: What do you call the one black guy at a gathering of 1,000 Republicans? A: “Mr. Chairman.”)

It’s just that conservative ideals like self-sufficiency and minimal dependence on government have no appeal to underperforming minorities—groups who, in the statistical generality, are short of the attributes that make for group success in a modern commercial nation.

Of what use would it be to them to embrace such ideals? They would end up even more decisively pooled at the bottom of society than they are currently.

A much better strategy for them is to ally with as many disaffected white and Asian subgroups as they can (homosexuals, feminists, dead-end labor unions), attain electoral majorities, and institute big redistributionist governments to give them make-work jobs and transfer wealth to them from successful groups.

Which is what, very rationally and sensibly, they do.

So it’s not the “white” that bothers me. Heck, conservatives might just as well be honest about it, since it’s so almighty bleeding obvious.

It’s that “supremacy” and “nationalism” are poor fits for the spectrum of views out here on the To-Be-Determined Right.

(Whether “white” will become a poor fit too once I get the Arctic Alliance going, I shall discuss another time.)

What else have we got?

American Renaissance’sJared Taylor, who has himself used “White Nationalism” in the past, seems to have settled on “race realist.” Again, though, Jared is working his own particular furrow. I’m all forrace realism—it sure beats race denialism—and it’s a key concept underpinning the Who-The-Heck-Are-We Right. But it’s just one concept sharing space with others (the aforementioned liberty, sovereignty, science, constitutionalism) and I don’t think should be privileged.

So what do we call ourselves? I’m going to make a pitch for “Dissident Right.”

The word “dissident” has its roots in Latin dis-, meaning “apart,” and sedere, “to sit.” Dissidents sit apart from the main crowd, don’t join in the community singing, and refuse to applaud the Emperor’s new clothes.

[Wang Ruowang] was jailed by all the major Chinese despots of that era: by Chiang Kai-shek in the 1930s, by Mao Tse-tung in the 1950s, and again in the 1960s, and then by Deng Xiaoping after the student movement of 1989, which Wang—then aged 71—vigorously supported … Wang enjoyed the distinction of having been expelled from the Party twice …

The sensational courage and integrity of those dissidents from totalitarianism in fact gives me pause. There might, I mean, be something a bit impertinent in comparing our occasional inconveniences with the horrors that they, and often their families and friends, faced up to.

There is also the air of loserdom that hangs over dissidence: what I once described in a column as “the futility of dissidents.”

All right; I was obviously on a downer at the time. I’ve put in hundreds of hours with Soviet and Chinese dissidents, though, and they really are a shabby and depressing lot. (I’ll except Wang Bingzhang, who was always smartly turned out.)

Still and all, we need a name. And I suggest that “Dissident Right” is as good as any.

For a fallback position—considering the pusillanimity and careerism of Conservatism Inc., its eagerness to fall into line with any leftist doctrine that does not involve higher taxation or being beastly to embryos—how about just…

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.

Church_of_Jed

We should call ourselves “the White community” and be done with it.

Detroit_WASP

Mucho blanco

Johnny Reb

Separatists works for me. Every white here has widely different views on various topics but what we all have in common, I think, is that none of us want to live in a nonwhite neighborhood, send our children to non-white schools or have to be around non-whtes on a daily basis (unless they have a mop in their hands).

Those afraid to call themselves separatists might want to focus on the more benign “white civil rights activist.”

Able white males, 18-65, are the only class of people who do not fall under some state or federal “Protected Class.”

By default, that means we have no protection against discrimination. That means we do not enjoy the same level of civil rights as non-whites, females, homos, indians, disabled, minors, the mentally challenged, etc, etc.

Jupiter7

My favorite:Native Born White American Patriot Movement.
Here is my big problem with John Derbyshire:I strongly suspect he will argue that Asians and Native Born White Americans should form a political coalition. Somehow they are suppose to be our natural allies. Nothing could be further from truth. They are another nonwhite racial group that is actively participating in the race-replacement of the Native Born White American Majority. Native Born White Americans are being to forced to compete with the Asian invaders for the scarce resources of America..it is already a brutal rat race..it is going to get a worse. Why should young Native Born White American Males have to compete with young Asian Males for living and breeding space in our America? You can only raise this question within the highly racialized Native Born White American Patriot Movement framework.

The Native Born White American Patriot Movement is among other things is White gut level racial tribalism that states the obvious fact that Native Born White Americans survived and prospered quite well when there were hardly any asians in our America…we put twelve alpha Native Born White American Males on the Moon when our America was 90 percent Native Born White American and NASA was 99 percent Native Born White American.

I’m not interested in political abstractions. Our approach must be organic and gut level visceral.

A label is given power by those who adhere to the underlying principles and premise which gave them enough ambition and inspiration to identify with that label in the first place. Without some kind of common unity(singularity), a label will actually do more to drive a wedge between “we,” with the different personality clashes of that exist, than it will to build an actual movement.

Years and years have passed and the question of “we” still proves itself to be the least definable and the most divisive.

Pandemonium

“We” are White.

As Western society devolves, all the small nuances which divide us now will disappear, perhaps slowly, until all that will be left will be our Whiteness.

The Latin root of “nation” is nat, or “born”. So, in that context, whether we are occupying a single piece of geography, we can still be a nation even though we are geographically dispersed.

My race is my nation.

WmarkW

I’ll be a proud member of the dissident right.
It means I don’t subscribe to the current ideology of the Republican party.
We need to balance the budget, not cut taxes until we have.
Cut our military commitments.
And I don’t really give a damn about gay marriage, either way.

http://www.youtube.com/user/GenXinOz GenX ANZAC

This sure is a problem, as you
want to belong to a movement which broad and all encompassing in its philosophy
as to reach the widest possible audience and to thus get that ‘people power’
momentum.

As the more specific and fine
turned the message, the more opportunity there is for splintering and in
faction fighting, whereas instead spending your energies fighting your real
enemies, you’re in essence fighting the minded in a political civil war (while
your enemies sit back and laugh at you).Is it the Western man’s ego or the
need to redesign and modify everything which on one hand makes us brilliant,
but on the other side splitters us.

This occurs on both sides of the
political spectrum though, my mother used to work at the Human Rights
Commission and she told me that every time a new law came in, they’d get phone
calls all day from the extreme left saying” that wasn’t enough” and the right
would ring and say that “it’s too much”. So you can’t please everyone, so what
do you do? Keep it simple?

I don’t think that would work for
the race realists as we really do go against the ‘simple’ populist mainstream
views which are only getting more engrained as ‘absolute truths’ as time goes on,
so this means the counter argument has to get more complicated to combat this,
which then makes us come across as contrived, and my feeling has always been
that the more you have to explain yourself the less truthful you appear.

But that’s the thing, these days
the ‘truth’ is left in the hands of the PR spin merchants and the mass media talking
heads that all have to adhere to the principles of Marxism political correctness.

An example that struck me this
week on how deep we’re all in this world of anti truths, came from reading a
couple of posts here, one heartening exchange from a couple of White young men posting
about taping into their masculinity through weight lifting and practising Martial
Arts and another sadder post from a 31 year lady lamenting single life and her
biological clock winding down.

What occurred to me is just how
conditioned we all are with Marxist anti truths such as…

-Girls can do anything boys can.

-Gays make great parents and ought
to be able to marry.

-Boys need to be more feminine to
be complete people.

-As everyone is innately equal,
all differences in success outcomes must be due to suppression and so on.

That when you do hear about what
used to be a normal acceptable truth that comes as a refreshing shock such
as…

-Men should be masculine to be fulfilled
and likewise Woman should be feminine to find happiness.

These ideas are now controversial
and politically incorrect, although they are innate.

Breaking away from the majority
view point is hard work, it’s uncomfortable and it doesn’t make you many
friends on the superficial level. Giving the choice between being next to the
heat or the cold, we all gravitate towards the more comfortable option, but
growth and discovery come from venturing into the unknown, stepping out into
the cold darkness of space, or sailing away from shore into the vast ocean.

So are we just too comfortable or
lazy or think that we have too much to lose?

It feels like the Western man’s
sense of individualism has been hijacked away from us to push through universal
collectivism. On one hand what makes us great is our individual outlook and the
way that we can transfer our own sense of self and entitlements to others, but
then we need to be part of a collective if only for the strength of numbers.
Yet as we on the right are so splintered and individualized, we are weak and
are democratically losing power through the more cohesive and collectivist gene
pools, who we’ve complimented by bestowing our own grandiose sense of the self
upon, only to have it throw back in our face, by a locusts mentality.

What do you do if your strengths
are also your weaknesses?

Go back to keeping it simple and
carry yourself in the most upstanding way you can.

On a side note if Diversity comes
from difference, which we already have in the White genome, and if there are no
racial differences as the multi-culter’s tell us, then where does the actual diversity
come, when introducing racial diversity?

Church_of_Jed

We are the “community of Whiteness” vs. their “community of color”.

Your terms individualize us into just a bunch of people and patriots scattered about.

“Community” is a term of unity and common interests. That’s why you will see “community of color” used more than “black people” when critical policy issues are at stake. They know how to project force and momentum better than we do, because we think and talk like individuals, while they think and talk tribally, and they are winning.

anarchyst

We must not allow our enemies or adversaries to define us . . . by calling us “racists”, they are setting the agenda by defining us as an “undesirable” part of humanity without the right to determine our own destiny.
I, for one, am PROUD to be called a “racist” to which I reply enthusiastically “thank you for noticing”. Just being “white” gives me cause to give “thanks” to my creator . . .
That being said, “the white community” seems to be appropriate . . .

Sheila Dinehart

No, Rick…1861 was the year of secession of the Confederate States of America against the Union. The CSA denounced slavery in its Constitution, the only problem is that the North rid itself of African Slavery earlier so most of their slaves were *sold down south* adding to the millions of African slaves already there. So to have a war in a country with all the blacks against a country that had a few (relatively speaking) blacks was not carried out in order for the South to become a *white nation* in the sense you speak of.

America has never been a country established for or as a *white nation*, however the white Anglo Saxon Protestant did in fact rule and run the nation, for quite a long time,and was conscious of race believing in the superior status of white men with property, whom were the only individuals who were permitted to vote.

I think Hitler’s notion for Germany has been the only actual move to establish that nation of whites you may be thinking of. So *nationalism* isn’t a word one will want to use openly to describe what you want And of course there was South Africa which was certainly a mistake in judgement as one can see it as it has become in recent decades.

Some people have suggested whites should return to Europe after all the colored peoples of the earth have been sent to America and England where it has been said they have already taken control of all aspects of that country anyway, though the Royal Family might not understand that considering their isolation from the real world. Can’t think of anything better for the *Royal Family*, can you?

Sheila Dinehart

I like it when you watch me moderator.

MissBonnie123

“America has never been a country established for or as a *white nation*……”

If you read the Founding Fathers writings on race, you will see that they intended America to be a nation for White people only. True, they were only thinking of British control of America but the intention was definitely to keep it a White majority.

Sheila Dinehart

Unless whites are willing to go the nationalistic/militaristic route, say like the Black Islamics/Muslims or the Black Panthers or any number of the many black militant groups (some created and supported by liberal so-called whites who pledged to shed their white skin privilege in order to bring violent revolution so desired by whites of the SLA/Weatherman for instance.

Then it would be necessary to declare a war by drawing up a formal declaration of war against, how did the Weather lawyer founder Bernadine Dorn put it?…”Declaration of War against Amerikkka”. One certainly has to have an enemy to wage war against, right? Considering America is now what the SLA/Weatherman/Black Panthers and so on work to bring into being…maybe finding the enemy wouldn’t be that difficult.

Maybe it is already being done, has been done, the organization to bring back the so-called lost Americkkka. Maybe only timing is the factor, now.

http://profile.yahoo.com/RHOOBUIWVFVM6UTQIWAEDZ446U MightyWhitey

What I thought of when I read this article was… Wiemar Republic 😉

I like White Nationalist because I believe it describes me. I am
White and although there is no “White Nation” I consider myself to be
longing for the inevitable.

Long have I held the position that nothing would ever change in this
country until people go hungry. The coming inflation will do just that.
The blacks will be first to freak out due to their dependency on
welfare. When funny money only buys half of what it bought last month,
all Hell will break loose. Whites will recoil in horror, as well as be
scrapping to survive themselves.

Yes, PC goes right out the window when you are hungry!!

Pandemonium

Don’t you think the “gubmint” will issue food stamps to keep up with inflation?

http://profile.yahoo.com/RHOOBUIWVFVM6UTQIWAEDZ446U MightyWhitey

The “gubmint” will try to do just that, only to see it fail.

Any means of currency, such as Dollars, Food Stamps, Gold, Silver, Shekels, etc., etc., only has value if someone is willing to exchange their labor for it.

The less perceived value in the aforementioned, the less people are willing to accept them as a means of exchange.

“Pandemonium” will ensue.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J2K5ZMDFMZJXXOIIFMPG2A55KQ Timothy J

I use the terms White advocacy and White solidarity a lot. Many people think bad things when they hear “nationalist” or “separatist”. I just try to make it palatable when talking to friends and family.
Dissident Right works, so does the White Community. All the terms have their place in and work together with what our ultimate goals are.

JohnEngelman

“Genetic determinist” fits me. I believe that genes are more important than any other factor in determining not only ability levels, but personality and character. Good and bad genes can be found in all racial groups, but not in the same proportions.

http://independent-british-nationalist.blogspot.com/ British Activism

I would have to give this a bit more thought, but, should we really box ourselves in to a defined label anyway?

It may just help the opposition groups package us and brand us even more than they do today.

At least with a wide variety of groups and names and positions, they struggle to really pin people down.

If they say “supremacist” in a bad way, we can easily show that we are not supremacists. If they try and stick another tag on to us (like here in Britain where it is “extreme / far right” and “neo-nazi” or of course “fascist”) – it is quite easy to reach ordinary people with our common sense and to point out many of our policies and positions are not “right-wing” at all, that we are just advocates for our own societies and peoples – and what is ‘neo-nazi’ about that?

I am just as switch-able as others when they describe themselves and their outlooks.

Sometimes I say ‘alternative right’ (as in Richard Spencer and Alex Kurtagic), some times I say ‘New Right’ (As in Bowden, Southgate, Webster, Sunic), most of the time I am a “British Nationalist” or part of the “British Resistance”, an ‘ethno-nationalist’ (pardon the redundant double meaning, but it is meant as differentiating civic nationalism), and very occasionally a “white nationalist”.

It may be different in the United States, but here in Europe I do not really see a contraction with the term ‘white nationalist’. We are nationalists for our (white) people in our ancient homelands – and most of us support and champion each others ‘white nation’ to remain for those ethnic groupings.

Eg, We want Germany to be full of German people, France for the true French, Austria for the Austrians, etc. That is what the ‘nationalism’ is about. We believe in nation states for peace and prosperity and freedom. Many of us nationalists support other non-white nations to retain their own destiny and control over their affairs – like Tibet, or wherever.

We are against globalisation, destruction of borders, mixing everybody up together, and an emerging global dominant force to control it all.

But first of all, our interest is with our kinsmen, European Americans, Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, all the nation states in western and eastern Europe, Russia, etc. The rest will just have to look out for themselves.

Dissident Right is okay, but not all that smooth to roll off the tongue. Well, not for me anyway, as I have trouble verbally starting words with D’s due to a speech impediment lol. White Preservationist, White Advocate, White Civil Rights Activists, Radical Right, Revolutionary Right, Realist Right, yeah, I can see John Derbyshire’s struggle to pin it down in a neat and tidy way.

We are many things. Maybe it does not need a definition, it just needs us to be successful at ‘moving the floor’ in our collective and fairly loose direction?

“NeoCon” is now used as a bit of a slur or a lazy bracket to pin some people down. Sometimes it is accurate, sometimes it is not, and occasionally washes away any true meaning of a position somebody may hold. I wouldn’t really want a “catchy” label that was the equivalent of “NeoCon” to pin me (or us) down.

occam24

One quibble:
“Of what use would it be to them to embrace such ideals? They would end
up even more decisively pooled at the bottom of society than they are
currently.”

Derb assumes the wrong cause. American blacks did embrace white ideals during the era of partial segregation, from about 1900 through 1960. In that period they succeeded. There was a thriving black middle and upper class within the black part of town, and nowhere near as much dependency or crime as we have now.

The “pooling at the bottom” began when the integrators told blacks to ABANDON white behavior. That was the whole purpose of the integrators: to push Designated Victims into behaviors and positions where they were guaranteed to fail, guaranteed to become government clients forever. The integrators couldn’t tolerate solid middle-class black communities with separate and profitable businesses.

slobotnavich

Well spoken, and true as well.

anarchyst

If you are white and (attempt to) apply for a “Small Business Administration” (SBA) loan, you will be denied.
You see, these loans are available only to foreigners who obtain “green cards” in our country.
No white native-born Americans neeed apply . . .

mikejones91

is that actually true? I believe it if it was, and still even if they told me no. I’ve been brought up to think WE ran the country, but in reality, the non-whites have ALL the power.

bluegrass91

My long-winded comment here is to address others questioning of Derbyshire’s authenticity due to his Asian wife. It is also a comment to generalize what a White Separatist Nation might look like.

I believe that within a separate White Nation, John Derbyshire should be
allowed to take his Asian wife with him were he to decide to reside in
said country.

If a White man/women were to travel abroad and meet a Nigerian, or
Filipino, or Colombian husband/wife, they too should be free to bring
back their spouse.

Immigrant investors would be allowed. Their families as well after
considerable oversight and with a severe amount of limitations. (no
extended family) It would function in the same way the
American businessman is welcome in Japan but holds no pretensions that
he will ever become Japanese. The Japanese/Chinese businessman would
likewise be welcomed in the White homeland in the same circumstance.
Isolated and rare cases of non-Whites in the nation would be
acceptable. Having an almost 4th Reich obsession with purity would
ultimately be counterproductive.

Simply put, the Nation should vehemently strive for a 90%+
White-European ethnic solidarity. The occasional port-side China town,
or Indian reservation, or rural black community, would be tolerable as
long as numerically their proportion of the population doesn’t grow
beyond 1% or even 2%. White European would also very loosely
translated, and many “swarthy” individuals would likely find themselves
citizens. This won’t be any Northern-European hyperborea, and many
half-Arab, half-Asian, half-mestizo, (even full mestizo) individuals
would find themselves classified as “white” citizens.

Why this more generalized form of ethnic citizenship? Because the myth
of the American melting pot is true in its historical context. America
did successfully mix and match various European identities that were
killing one another quite fervently back in the homeland. (With some
growing pains, particularly from Irish and Mediterranean communities)

The fault in the modern myth of the melting pot (born out of ignorance
towards the reality of HBD) is the powers that be assume this same
amazing phenomenon can be repeated easily with Mestizos, Asians, and
Africans in large numbers.

America, whether in 1950 or 1920, had a sub-conscious sense of
European-Caucasian identity that most of the Nation took for granted.
Of course differences (in class/crime/appearance) between Poles, and
Irish, and Italians and the old Northern-European stock were visible,
but the European framework held firm and America accomplished
unparalleled feats of industrial, technological and economic progress.
Irish in many ways were hated as fiercely as blacks in the North, yet
overtime melted into this European framework. Blacks have existed in
America since day one, and their harsh introduction to America aside
have never assimilated in any meaningful manner whether they faced
racial bigotry or preference. Liberals have blamed this on White racism,
yet blacks are still as separate as ever after 50 years of liberal
direct control by affirmative. Are Whites truly to blame for all the
cultural and economic separations of Blacks? Is it possible that Blacks
themselves have a healthy desire for separation which sanctimonious
liberals misunderstand and disrespect?

Even when segregated in the past or bribed to assimilate in the
future, black separatism is alive and well as it ever was in these past
200 years. Why? Because, no matter the sincerity of pro-assimilation
Blacks and Whites, the African population of America was fundamentally,
and as distasteful as this is, biologically incapable of absorbing into
the European framework.

Embracing what President Coolidge described as the “Ideal of American
homogeneity” in his 1924 Immigration act should be the inspirational
template of a White Separatist Nation. Ted Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration
act should be considered our greatest fear, in which the White homelands
constitution places strict protections against.

The bill or rights was intended to protect the individual from transgressions by government.

A similar “bill or ethnic rights” would need to be in place to protect the ethnic and cultural identity of a White Nation.

It would be the safeguard in a future, holding back businessman striving
to import foreigners to drive down wages in the name of G.D.P. It
would protect us from liberal moral panderers crying for us to take in
the refugees of the world.

The Alternative Right, the Dissident Right, paleoconservatism, whatever
you want to call it, are basically a group of poignant critique writers
of modern Western existence. I would like to see more construction,
more ideological building.

Why not write the hypothetical constitution of a separatist White
America Nation? It would not differ greatly from America in 1924, so
the work of involved in its creation would not be astronomical. It would
be hopeful galvanization, and likely get some form of media attention
as they release articles on “racist constitution created”.

Jared, Derb, Kurtagic: why not give it a shot?

Celestial_Time

“Simply put, the Nation should vehemently strive for a 90%+ White-European ethnic solidarity.”

Proper semantics are of the utmost importance in this kind of context. I would rather see the indelible ‘Never Fall Below’ than to put any trust in a government to “strive for” anything. The former is an essential building block, while the latter is essentially a malleable path to excuse-making and incompetence.

bluegrass91

True. Any white nation’s constitution would need protections against the inevitable future leaders who will care little for the founding principles. “Never fall below” would be far less malleable, though I could see lesser leaders in the future circumvent through deconstructions of what is considered “European-ethnic solidarity”

Japan is a ray of hope, for at least one modern nation, in both leadership and citizenry, has never forsaken its clear ethnic identity.

http://independent-british-nationalist.blogspot.com/ British Activism

I’m not sure I agree. The absolute aim should be 100% white ethnic societies, all the time, every time. There may be a very random non-white dotted here or there, but I cannot see how there can be a defined “percentage point” to where it is deemed acceptable to sink to.

This is probably how many of our problems came about, this sliding acceptance of “we could have a little china town here and a little black and latino community over there, as long as they don’t get above x-percent it is not a problem….” It smacks of multiculturalism and wanting a little “spice” and a bit of “sightseeing variety”, yet not wanting any problems either.

Prey tell, how is it proposed to curb their population trends? What will happen when they break through the x-percent barrier? What do you propose to do? It is probably even worse if they are allowed to settle in groups all together. They can only ever expand their presence because of reproduction amongst themselves within that pool.

If you had a couple of thousand split up and spread right across the United States, one or two in each town or a couple of hundred spread out in each state, there is more chance of them being absorbed into the wider population over hundreds of years, with the vast numbers of whites there (and procreating) meaning it would not make a dent on the overall survival of the white race.

Some may denounce that idea, but I am talking about a very tiny fraction of people it would (in theory) apply to, over many hundreds of years – to the point those couple of thousands in the pool of many millions, were simply washed away and assimilated into the racial group.

Currently, they are in blocks, vying for territory, taking over, and racial mixture is more frequent and getting higher to the point where it will be whites who are mixed away and lost forever. This low volume and spread out nature I am talking about would be the opposite of that. But ideally it should not be there as a potential problem at all.

In the United Kingdom, Britain was 99.8% white at the end of the 1940’s. Today it is around 83% white, and we are to be gone into minority status before 2066.

In 2001, they were around 10%. Ie, we were that 90% you allude to as being ‘okay’.

They were in their own communities (multiculturalism) and we had China towns, Hindu/Punjabi communities, Muslim enclaves, Afro-Caribbean, etc.

Even if immigration was stopped entirely, the indigenous people of Britain will still be outnumbered by the end of this century unless radical action was taken and a mass birthrate was applied for the whites. Over 33% of Births in England and Wales were recorded as “non-white British” in 2005.

But here, we simply haven’t the room to double our numbers to ramp up a massive breeding rate in order to save our country, we are getting packed in like sardines, one of the most overcrowded nations in Europe. If it carried on, we would be like those countries you see like Pakistan, where there are millions heaving around in utter chaos and people riding on top of train carriages.

Seeing as we are not in control of governments or policies – and nor can we expect to be for long periods of time (even if we were momentarily propelled into power) – I do not think it is feasible to think of being able to work it out through policy alone, through a legislation. The people already in the country would still pose a problem, and the “liberals” would soon rip up our laws and statutes.

It is a little different in the states, you have more room to manoeuvre, you have more options.

One of your old presidents had the right idea when he campaigned for deporting all the blacks because he saw the peril it would eventually cause to the ‘white America’ they had founded. I don’t know what you could do now – if whites were in charge maybe round them all up, relocate them, shove them all down towards the border of Mexico with the Mexican invaders and just partition yourselves back off above the tide line!

I know what you are saying that a very tiny percentage is hardly a threat……but it can become a threat and a problem to grapple with.

90% is not high enough in my opinion, especially if they are left in enclaves. 99% coupled with extremely tight immigration and foreign-marriage laws maintained over generations might be the ideal seeing as nothing is ever perfect. 100% should be the goal though, in my view.

However, it is all too late now and all hypothetical. White America is destined for doom around 2050-2060 – much like Britain, France, Germany etc. They are already well over 10% – risen from that initial ‘couple of percent won’t harm’ era things started off with.

The more of them there are, the harder it becomes to see them off and see off the liberal and societal ideology of letting more come or be ‘naturally’ present.

What do we all do about it now? I really do not know.

bluegrass91

You make many valid points, and personally I would love to have
100% European ethnicity as the foundation for any white nation whether in
Europe or America. My 1% to 2%
exceptions in terms of non-whites within the Nation is an attempt at realistic
expectations more so than intellectual straightforwardness.

“This is probably how many of our problems came about, this
sliding acceptance of “we could have a little china town here and a little
black and latino community over there, as long as they don’t get above
x-percent it is not a problem….” It smacks of multiculturalism and
wanting a little “spice” and a bit of “sightseeing
variety”, yet not wanting any problems either.”

Seeing as your British, I am overly biased towards an
American view on the formation of a White separate Nation. I’m almost certain this Nation will not be
created out of peaceful process, and also certain that it will be a spontaneous
creation born from balkanization like chaos. I don’t desire these communities,
nor their “spice” they would offer, but I have a distinct feeling an American WN
nation would end up with them in some form or another anyway. The war would be transient, quick, and
bloody. The ending borders (if there are
any classical nation state borders at all) would ephemeral and by the time the
dust finally settles, stationary communities (Indian reservations, China Towns,
Black Strongholds) that had garrisoned through the conflict would find
themselves under the governance of militaristic ethnic groups. (Be it the
Mexican military, A WN military, or even more hypothetical some kind of Asian
interventionist force)

I have no doubt that Mexico, in their Annexation of large
portions of the American Southwest will find themselves with substantial
communities of American whites, blacks, and other racial groups they had no
intention of governing. Just like their
WN counterpart, how they decide to deal with the aforementioned groups will be one
of the major political fault-lines of a post-collapse America. Imagine if a WN nation decided to expel
hundreds of thousands of black Americans from areas under their control? Where would they go? No doubt they’d send
them packing towards Mexican controlled areas.
Why I hypothesize like this is because it is fundamentally necessary for
White Separatist’s types to understand that to achieve our goals, we’re going
to have to get our hands very, very dirty.
The entire world political landscape would suddenly alter, and the Asian,
Latin, and Arab world will not sit idly by.
They will maneuver militarily and politically to seek advantageous positions
in the altered geopolitical field.

“Prey tell, how is it proposed to curb their population
trends? What will happen when they break through the x-percent barrier? What do
you propose to do? It is probably even worse if they are allowed to settle in
groups all together. They can only ever expand their presence because of
reproduction amongst themselves within that pool.”

I’d harsh to say but, as a non-White in a WN country, they
will experience strict segregation and control.
It would not only pressure them to emigrate, but would keep check on any
reproduction trends that could threaten the home Nation’s ethnic balance. The politburo’s treatment of non-Han
populations within its borders, and the effectiveness of its fertility bureaucracy,
may be the model application in controlling groups we don’t desire but ultimately
must learn to tolerate.

“Some may denounce that idea, but I am talking about a very
tiny fraction of people it would (in theory) apply to, over many hundreds of
years – to the point those couple of thousands in the pool of many millions,
were simply washed away and assimilated into the racial group.”

I agree with this. It is somewhat sad that American blacks
had not merely genetically assimilated into the larger white population 200 or
so years ago. Their genetic contribution
to the overall stock would be limited, and would be further offset by net
European immigration anyways. Instead
they were kept separate, inevitably burgeoned in % of the population, and now
are a primary threat to white Ethnic interests in our modern era.

I should mention that in the chaos of the racial war, there
won’t be much measuring of cranial sizes in choosing who fights for what group.
The Barack Obama looking mulatto will inevitably be thrown in with the darker
groups, forced either by fellow blacks or by aggressive Whites. A half-Asian/White will simply look in the
mirror, say to himself “I’m White enough” and go on and through in his lot for
WN out of selfish pragmatism. Trying to deconstruct racial identity won’t
seem very safe or pertinent when everything’s mad max and if you don’t choose
sides quick, you get shot.

“In the United Kingdom, Britain was 99.8% white at the end
of the 1940’s. Today it is around 83% white, and we are to be gone into
minority status before 2066.”

The U.K. is a hard case for me to wrap my head around. In America, I believe some kind of instinctual
racial survival switch will kick in once White America reaches 40%-50% of the
population (at least I hope so) triggering the collapse of the post-racial
society. The de-Whitening of America has
been such a long process (only recently sent into overdrive by Hispanic
mass-immigration) that I believe sub-consciously many American Whites
understand the racial battlefield being laid out before them.

Yet the U.K. has been in anti-White overdrive only in a 15 or
so year period. The physical limitation
of Britain’s Geography, alongside the lack of armaments amongst the civilian
population, lends itself to more Nazi-esque final solutions than to racial realpolitik
and compromise likely in America. I’m
not sure how you’ll solve your problems, unless a total Nationalist government
comes to power during a collapse.

“In 2001, they were around 10%. Ie, we were that 90% you
allude to as being ‘okay’.”

You’re right for Britain, as it is unacceptable due to
historical precedence. In America, it’s unrealistic
to believe that we could keep ourselves at 99% ethnically European without ceding
vast amounts of territory in order to consolidate. In other words while it’s easy to keep Vermont and Maine
99% white, it will be vastly more difficult to keep everything east of the Mississippi
99% white.

“They were in their own communities (multiculturalism) and
we had China towns, Hindu/Punjabi communities, Muslim enclaves, Afro-Caribbean,
etc.”

Again, in America, we’ve always had the communities. We functioned fine till about 1965 (the black
question not-withstanding), before everything went into White extinction
overdrive. Britain, with its limited
size and more specific ethnic identity, may not be able to function at a 90%
White Nation like America could.

“Even if immigration was stopped entirely, the indigenous people
of Britain will still be outnumbered by the end of this century unless radical
action was taken and a mass birthrate was applied for the whites. Over 33% of Births in England and Wales were
recorded as “non-white British” in 2005.”

Again, if we’re willing to get our hands dirty like the
Chinese we could control this phenomenon with harsh, though not necessarily
violent measures.

“But here, we simply haven’t the room to double our numbers
to ramp up a massive breeding rate in order to save our country, we are getting
packed in like sardines, one of the most overcrowded nations in Europe. If it
carried on, we would be like those countries you see like Pakistan, where there
are millions heaving around in utter chaos and people riding on top of train
carriages.”

I hope neither I nor my children will ever see such a
day. Hopefully, your people have the “instinct-switch”
that I pray is hidden somewhere in our White populations. That instinctual feeling that will arise,
no matter what the media and government says otherwise, when it becomes
viscerally, visually, and spiritually clear that we will lose our Nations
without drastic action.

“Seeing as we are not in control of governments or
policies – and nor can we expect to be
for long periods of time (even if we were momentarily propelled into power) – I
do not think it is feasible to think of being able to work it out through
policy alone, through a legislation. The
people already in the country would still pose a problem, and the “liberals”
would soon rip up our laws and statutes.”

Not to sound morose, but those liberals will likely be dead or
tongue-tied as they run to the militaristic security of White Nationalists.

“One of your old presidents had the right idea when he
campaigned for deporting all the blacks because he saw the peril it would
eventually cause to the ‘white America’ they had founded. I don’t know what you
could do now – if whites were in charge maybe round them all up, relocate them,
shove them all down towards the border of Mexico with the Mexican invaders and
just partition yourselves back off above the tide line!”

As we’ve seen in the Latinization of Los Angeles, and with
the Armed Korean defenders of the Watts riots, every group deals with the “black
question”. American blacks, in the
context of a post-collapse America, our pretty much screwed unless they
coalesce and get their act together.
Hispanic Americans, backed by a northern-crusading Mexican military,
will turn their barrio vs. Ghetto animosity into full-scale ethnic
cleansing. The blacks could run northwest,
only to find Asian enclaves hardly welcoming.
They could go east or towards the rocky-mountain regions and if White Nationalists
are in power, may find the least welcoming group of all.

“I know what you are saying that a very tiny percentage is
hardly a threat……but it can become a threat and a problem to grapple with.”

Agreed. Strive for
100%, but expect that in realistic terms once the dust settles it will likely
85% to 90%. America is just too large,
and too much the mulch-cultural mosaic to expect an Aryan superstate. That may come later, if the White Separatist
nation decided to go in more radical directions in the aftermath.

“However, it is all too late now and all hypothetical. White America is destined for doom around
2050-2060 – much like Britain, France, Germany etc. They are already well over
10% – risen from that initial ‘couple of percent won’t harm’ era things started
off with.”

While you say “Doom”, I merely say “let’s just get this over with”. For
me, just keep speaking the prophecy even while the state denies it. The more those embrace it as inevitability, the
better our chances after inevitable collapse.
The Achilles heel of the Western pleasure control state against Whites
is that it requires Whites in order for it to function. In many ways, we’re our own worst enemy, so
as we recede in population, so do many of the structures in place that keep us
inactive.

“What do we all do about it now? I really do not know.”

-Arm yourself in whatever way. I know this near impossible in the U.K., and
may eventually become difficult in America.
Just as importantly have the food, water, and know-how for you (or
family) to find safety and survive for at least two weeks. Also have some idea where you would think it
would be safest to run to. Whites, if
properly prepared, can survive the collapse with better numbers if they have
the necessities, and refrain from venturing out into the dangerous lawlessness in
search for sustenance. I have no doubt blacks
and Hispanics in America will attrition themselves in sizable numbers in their chaotic
looting and shooting that will immediately follow in their communities (i.e. Katrina). Stable Whites merely need to prepare, consolidate,
and never think twice about shooting first.

-Plant the seed in your peers and families mind, subtly if
you must, that we’re in a nightmare, and that Whites need to wake up. They’ll reject you at first out of conformity
and political correct distaste, but with every immigrant and black crime they
seen on T.V., they’ll secretly remember your candid words. Doubts will form, and those doubts will carry
toward their children. Doubts will transform
support for the system to complacency.
Complacency can form to insurgence, big or small, against the
system. Insurgence can form to revolution.

Anon12

You are right. Where do we draw the line. We don’t. In every bi-racial relationship the White partner will always defend the right of their spouses/offspring race to immigrate here. That is a given. How can they not? They would be a hypocrite if they did not. Right? It just creates more problems for us all down the road. Problems we did not ask for in the first place. We stayed within our own racial kindred.

Anon12

I believe that within a separate White Nation, John Derbyshire should be allowed to take his Asian wife with him were he to decide to reside in said country.

If a White man/women were to travel abroad and meet a Nigerian, or Filipino, or Colombian husband/wife, they too should be free to bring back their spouse.
______________________

One simple answer, NO! They can reside in the nation of their spouse. Why not? I will wager that is how HER family was brought into our country also…Family reunification it is called. How many tens of thousands have come here because of that?

Who are their offspring going to marry anyway? Another White? That is how it all begins. Dilute the bloodline even further and give the impression to OUR kids that it is okay to miscegenate? You lead by EXAMPLE! If they love their nonwhite spouse so much as to bring them here then why don’t they love THEIR countries/culture enough to STAY there? Don’t we Whites have any say in WHO we allow in our own country? Apparently not.

http://independent-british-nationalist.blogspot.com/ British Activism

I don’t know where your other response disappeared to, but thank you for your further input on this. Whilst I am not so sure on
some of the situations ending up quite that way you suggested, it does help put what
you originally said into a bit more of a picture on the canvass.

As yet, I have not been to the united states so it is hard to get a feel
for the place unless I actually go there for a considerable period of
time. I have always had a keen interest in what is happening to America
and have some of Jared Taylor’s books, as well as a few of Pat
Buchanan’s.

Whilst much of their work can be American-centric (historical factors,
different situations to Britain/Europe, issues with Mexicans and
legacies of slave populations and ‘segregation’ etc which we did not
have here), a lot of the other stuff, the antics that go on, the trends,
the liberal thinking, the arguments, the problems, are all pretty much
universal!

Trying to warn/inform non-nationalist friends and family is an absolute
minefield over here. They are mostly completely lobotomised and/or in
bed with the liberal establishment . They will not even hear it being
discussed, and when they do, they often toe the liberal line. It is like
banging a square peg into a round hole.

We who are aware to this and have cast off our mental shackles have studied and researched what is coming down the track.

For us, it is a cart full of explosives that will wipe us out – but they
still believe a cart full of fluffy bunnies, rainbows and ice-cream
will come, if only we didn’t discuss it, didn’t think about it, and
worked harder to solve the problems…..inequality, poverty, racial
understanding and tolerance, sharing “values” etc. The idea of us being minorities has been sidelined for years in ‘normal’ conversation.

Ten years ago I even used to get laughed at for saying this country would be
majority non-white in the future. They would call me loony, extremist,
mock how “that would mean every ethnic minority would need 100 children
each”……etc.

Some of them aren’t mocking now. They take it as a given that it will come.

However, whilst some now say “it’s too late, we’re screwed, might as
well forget about it” – some others now say “well, it shouldn’t matter
anyway”!!!

I was debating with somebody the other week online, they said “it
doesn’t matter if this country was full of non-whites as long as the
country otherwise remained the same”. With such mind-bending logic as
that, with such disregard for their own people, it doesn’t show much
hope for us here.

The whole situation often gets too big to know where to start too. It is
like trying to teach four year children quantum physics or answer their
curve-ball questions like “why is the sky blue if space is black?”.

You open your mouth and say something about the atmosphere and air and
water particles reflecting fractal light from the sun – and try and do
your best as a layman explanation – but they are just not understanding
half of what you are saying!

What probably annoys me most about over here is that if we had been
allowed to take sensible measures in the 1960’s, we would not be in
trouble today.

Every single lever of change has been denied to us, every option
crushed, whilst they crammed more and more immigrants in and gave
welfare for the existing ones to breed large broods at our expense.

It really is quite a sick situation when you think about it. Paying for
your own demise, then getting squashed underfoot and made to feel
“shame” for not being okay about how things are changing.

But some of us believe it is not a simple ‘accident’ – it has all been
by design, oiled along by vested interests and political ideologies. But
that is another matter! It doesn’t really matter if it was plotted and
schemed or not – they are here now, we are on our way out unless
something drastic happens.

Like many others, I do not want something drastic to happen. That is
another reason why I loathe the “liberals” who have helped bring this
on, they are forcing me to have to foresee horrific and wrenching
futures and piling up the wood for the bonfire. They throw gasoline all
over it, and throw flint stones everywhere, not expecting a spark to set
it all off, then blame us for the blazes when it does.

bluegrass91

Not sure why this was didn’t pass, I’d like to continue discussion on the British vs. American hypothesis on the birth of a White Nation. I’m posting my last post again anyways, and hope it will pass through. I’m responding to your last post as well, as I have questions concerning Britain and some of the white-social dynamics there that I, as an American, could not fully understand.

You make many valid points, and personally I would love to have 100% European ethnicity as the foundation for any white nation whether in Europe or America. My 1% to 2% exceptions in terms of non-whites within the Nation is an attempt at realistic expectation more so than intellectual straightforwardness.
“This is probably how many of our problems came about, this sliding acceptance of “we could have a little china town here and a little black and latino community over there, as long as they don’t get above x-percent it is not a problem….” It smacks of multiculturalism and wanting a little “spice” and a bit of “sightseeing variety”, yet not wanting any problems either.”
Seeing as your British, I am overly biased towards an American view on the formation of a White separate Nation. I’m almost certain this Nation will not be created out of peaceful process, and also certain that it will be a spontaneous creation born from balkanization like chaos. I don’t desire these communities, nor their “spice” they would offer, but I have a distinct feeling an American WN nation would end up with them in some form or another anyway. The war would be transient, quick, and bloody. The ending borders (if there are any classical nation state borders at all) would be ephemeral and by the time the dust finally settles stationary communities (Indian reservations, China Towns, Black Strongholds) that had garrisoned through the conflict would find themselves under the governance of militaristic ethnic groups. (Be it the Mexican military, A WN military, or even more hypothetical some kind of Asian interventionist force)
I have no doubt that Mexico, in their Annexation of large portions of the American Southwest will find themselves with substantial communities of American whites, blacks, and other racial groups they had no intention of governing. Just like their WN counterpart, how they decide to deal with the aforementioned groups will be one of the major political fault-lines of a post-collapse America. Imagine if a WN nation decided to expel hundreds of thousands of black Americans from areas under their control? Where would they go? No doubt they’d send them packing towards Mexican controlled areas. Why I hypothesize like this is because it is fundamentally necessary for White Separatist’s types to understand that to achieve our goals, we’re going to have to get our hands very, very dirty. The entire world political landscape would suddenly alter, and the Asian, Latin, and Arab world will not sit idly by. They will maneuver militarily and politically to seek advantageous positions in the altered geopolitical field.
“Prey tell, how is it proposed to curb their population trends? What will happen when they break through the x-percent barrier? What do you propose to do? It is probably even worse if they are allowed to settle in groups all together. They can only ever expand their presence because of reproduction amongst themselves within that pool.”
I’d harsh to say but, as a non-White in a WN country, they will experience strict segregation and control. It would not only pressure them to emigrate, but would keep check on any reproduction trends that could threaten the home Nation’s ethnic balance. The politburo’s treatment of non-Han populations within its borders, and the effectiveness of its fertility bureaucracy, may be the model application in controlling groups we don’t desire but ultimately must learn to tolerate.

“Some may denounce that idea, but I am talking about a very tiny fraction of people it would (in theory) apply to, over many hundreds of years – to the point those couple of thousands in the pool of many millions, were simply washed away and assimilated into the racial group.”
I agree with this. It is somewhat sad that American blacks had not merely genetically assimilated into the larger white population 200 or so years ago. Their genetic contribution to the overall stock would be limited, and would be further offset by net European immigration anyways. Instead they were kept separate, inevitably burgeoned in % of the population, and now are a primary threat to white Ethnic interests in our modern era.
I should mention that in the chaos of the racial war, there won’t be much measuring of cranial sizes in choosing who fights for what group. The Barack Obama looking mulattos will inevitably be thrown in with the darker groups, forced either by fellow blacks or by aggressive Whites. A half-Asian/White will simply look in the mirror, say to himself “I’m White enough” and go on and through in his lot for WN out of selfish pragmatism along. Trying to deconstruct racial identity won’t seem very safe or pertinent when everything’s mad max and if you don’t choose sides quick, you get shot.
“In the United Kingdom, Britain was 99.8% white at the end of the 1940’s. Today it is around 83% white, and we are to be gone into minority status before 2066.”
The U.K. is a hard case for me to wrap my head around. In America, I believe some kind of instinctual racial survival switch will kick in once White America reaches 40%-50% of the population (at least I hope so) triggering the collapse of the post-racial society. The de-Whitening of America has been such a long process (only recently sent into overdrive by Hispanic mass-immigration) that I believe sub-consciously many American Whites understand the racial battlefield being laid out before them.
Yet the U.K. has been in anti-White overdrive only in a 15 or so year period. The physical limitation of Britain’s Geography, alongside the lack of armaments amongst the civilian population, lends itself to more Nazi-esque final solutions than to racial realpolitik and compromise likely in America. I’m not sure how you’ll solve your problems, unless a total Nationalist government comes to power during a collapse.

“In 2001, they were around 10%. Ie, we were that 90% you allude to as being ‘okay’.”
You’re right for Britain, as it is unacceptable due to historical precedence. In America, it’s unrealistic to believe that we could keep ourselves at 99% ethnically European without ceding vast amounts of territory in order to consolidate. I.E., it’s easier to keep Vermont and Maine 99% white, it will be more difficult to keep everything east of the Mississippi 99% white.

“They were in their own communities (multiculturalism) and we had China towns, Hindu/Punjabi communities, Muslim enclaves, Afro-Caribbean, etc.”
Again, in America, we’ve always had the communities. We functioned fine till about 1965 (the black question not-withstanding), before everything went into White extinction overdrive. Britain, with its limited size and more specific ethnic identity, may not be able to function at a 90% White Nation like America could.
“Even if immigration was stopped entirely, the indigenous people of Britain will still be outnumbered by the end of this century unless radical action was taken and a mass birthrate was applied for the whites. Over 33% of Births in England and Wales were recorded as “non-white British” in 2005.”
Again, if we’re willing to get our hands dirty like the Chinese we could control this phenomenon with harsh, though not necessarily violent measures.
“But here, we simply haven’t the room to double our numbers to ramp up a massive breeding rate in order to save our country, we are getting packed in like sardines, one of the most overcrowded nations in Europe. If it carried on, we would be like those countries you see like Pakistan, where there are millions heaving around in utter chaos and people riding on top of train carriages.”
I hope neither I nor my children will ever see such a day. Hopefully, your people have the “instinct-switch” that I pray is hidden somewhere in our White populations. That instinctually feeling that will arise, no matter what the media and government says otherwise, when it becomes viscerally, visually, and spiritually clear that we will lose our Nations without drastic action.
“Seeing as we are not in control of governments or policies – and nor can we expect to be for long periods of time (even if we were momentarily propelled into power) – I do not think it is feasible to think of being able to work it out through policy alone, through a legislation. The people already in the country would still pose a problem, and the “liberals” would soon rip up our laws and statutes.”
Not to sound morose, but those liberals will likely be dead or tongue-tied as they run to the militaristic security of White Nationalists. Their system was built with a very, very short expiration date relative to civilizations of the past.
“One of your old presidents had the right idea when he campaigned for deporting all the blacks because he saw the peril it would eventually cause to the ‘white America’ they had founded. I don’t know what you could do now – if whites were in charge maybe round them all up, relocate them, shove them all down towards the border of Mexico with the Mexican invaders and just partition yourselves back off above the tide line!”
As we’ve seen in the Latinization of Los Angeles, and with the Armed Korean defenders of the Watts riots, every group deals with the “black question”. American blacks, in the context of a post-collapse America, our pretty much screwed unless they coalesce and get their act together. Hispanic Americans, backed by a northern-crusading Mexican military, will turn their barrio vs. Ghetto animosity into full-scale ethnic cleansing. The blacks could run northwest, only to find Asian enclaves hardly welcoming. They could go east or towards the rocky-mountain regions and if White Nationalists are in power, may find the least welcoming group of all.

“I know what you are saying that a very tiny percentage is hardly a threat……but it can become a threat and a problem to grapple with.”
Agreed. Strive for 100%, but expect that in realistic terms once the dust settles it will likely 85% to 90%. America is just too large, and too much the multi-cultural mosaic to expect an Aryan superstate. That may come later, if the White Separatist nation decided to go in more radical directions in the aftermath.

“However, it is all too late now and all hypothetical. White America is destined for doom around 2050-2060 – much like Britain, France, Germany etc. They are already well over 10% – risen from that initial ‘couple of percent won’t harm’ era things started off with.”
Doom for me though is “let’s just get this over with”. Just keep speaking the prophecy even while the state denies it. The more those embrace it as inevitability, the better our chances after inevitable collapse. The Achilles heel of the Western pleasure dome against Whites is that it requires Whites in order for it to function. In many ways, we’re our own worst enemy, so as we recede in population, so do many of the structures in place that keep us inactive.
“What do we all do about it now? I really do not know.”
-Arm yourself in whatever way. I know this near impossible in the U.K., and may eventually become difficult in America. Just as importantly have the food, water, and know-how for you (or family) to find safety and survive for at least two weeks. Also have some idea where you would think it would be safest to run to. Whites, if properly prepared, can survive the collapse with better numbers if they have the necessities, and refrain from venturing out into the dangerous lawlessness in search for sustenance. I have no doubt blacks in America will attrition themselves in sizable numbers in their chaotic looting and shooting that will immediately follow in their communities (i.e. Katrina). Stable Whites merely need to prepare, consolidate, and never think twice about shooting first.
-Plant the seed in your peers and families mind, subtly if you must, that we’re in a nightmare, and that Whites need to wake up. They’ll reject you at first out of conformity and political correct distaste, but with every immigrant and black crime they seen on T.V., they’ll secretly remember your candid words. Doubts will form, and those doubts will carry toward their children. Doubts will transform support for the system to complacency. Complacency can form to insurgence, big or small, against the system. Insurgence can form to revolution.

slobotnavich

Poor Derb, whom I’ve always loved and admired. I can almost imagine him squirming, then finally yelling “F–k it, I can’t take it anymore,” before issuing his journalistically suicidal remarks on race and achievement.

Obviously, he knew what the consequences would be, as did I, but I was disappointed in all the pious remarks from other so-called conservative colleagues frantic to distance themselves from the leprous John Derbyshire.

Mark Schmidt

Well Mr Derbyshire certainly should be considered ‘leprous’ by the white patriot movement. By coupling with an Oriental women and having non-white children and turning them into citizens of a white country is hardly pro-white.

If every white man followed the example of Mr Derbyshire, introducing three non-whites to white countries, the demographic disaster would happen not within decades but within 4 or 5 years.

Pro-white starts at home.

mikejones91

Very true but I think JD having an Asian wife could definitely help spread the word, so to speak. He has an Asian wife, so the sheep will say well he can’t be racist then right? He is just looking out for his people. IDK, I am surprised a man with an Asian wife is pro-white in the first place. Though, if she was black/hispanic he would probably be the complete opposite.

Mark Schmidt

The only thing holding John Derbyshire back from full blown white nationalism (which he no doubt finds intellectually and emotionally agreeable), is his marriage to a Chinese women, and his two half-Chinese children.

He alluded to this when he said being a ‘white nationalist’ would get him in trouble at home. He said this during a debate with Jared Taylor at the Robert A Taft club.

I wonder if he has any regrets about his inter-racial marriage, and his two non-white children.

Celestial_Time

I hate to break the news to you, but White Nationalism has no concrete definition. It’s totally dependent on what group of “White Nationalists” you are talking to at the moment.

I’m White.
I’m pretty much a Nationalist.
I’m certainly pro-White.

But I have very rarely thought of myself as a White Nationalist, because the simple definition of White+Nationalism is almost never adhered to by any group of White Nationalists.

ArturoPendriago

Are you Eternal Return over at AltRight?

Celestial_Time

No.

Pandemonium

the date’s wrong; it was 1939.

Blaak Obongo

Good Lord, all this agonizing over something so trivial. Our country is being turned into Afrimexico, our media are under the control of a hostile, antiWhite minority and our young are being conditioned to embrace their own extinction — and all we can do is fret about what to call ourselves?

Having read through all the postings in this thread up to now, I can say this:

1: I’m a Racist. The word doesn’t scare me, nor do those who use it against me.

2: John Derbyshire’s Oriental wife is okay with me.

3: I don’t care what our enemies call us.

Next thread, please?

Mark Schmidt

Sorry. With Point 3 you are way off base. Pro-white starts at home.

It is not pro-white to bring non-whites into a white country and multiply with them.

That is decidedly anti-white.

anonymous_amren

We’re not right-wing though. Some of us are right-wing, some of us are left-wing, some of us are centrists, and some of us can’t really be assigned any place on the left-right spectrum.

White advocates is a good label. Although that’s only part of the reason. Half of us are just realists, advocating truth for no other reason than because it’s true.

Personally, I’m a racist, race realist, a white seperatist, a white nationalist (but not a nationalist in general), sort-of a white supremacist (although I acknowledge the superiority of Jews and NE Asians in many ways), an apartheid-supporter (except for Israel), a eugenicist, sort of a colonialist and imperialist, and a bunch of other things.

I can’t admit all those when I’m not anonymous though.

Mark Schmidt

Sorry colonialism and imperialism is a lot to blame for why Europe and America are becoming more and more non-white.

And also what does Israel have to do with anything, apart from serving as an example of the sorry fate of a people (the Palestinians), colonised by outsiders (the Jews).

mikejones91

See what you just said “Half of us are just realists, advocating for the truth for no other reason than because it is true”. Is the most rational, realistic, right-on , comment I’ve read. That’s where I stand. Not far right, or left, I stand with the truth.

.

anonymous_amren

That’s because white nationalism is the belief that white people should have at least one nation just for them.

http://profile.yahoo.com/RHOOBUIWVFVM6UTQIWAEDZ446U MightyWhitey

White Churches will receive a hard lesson in Darwinism!

White altruism will give way to White common sense and SURVIVAL.

All welfare recipients will be hurt. I just believe that Whites stand a better chance of sucking it up and finding a solution. The rest will learn manners from the business end of the great equalizer.

White Nationalist

I firmly believe that our choice of what to call ourselves if of vital importance. We’ve got to figure this out, and soon. I’m not going to argue this point here but I hope most will agree.

However, I think that “dissident right” is a terrible name; downright stupid to be honest. A name has to be descriptive of a positive vision of reality that we seek to create for the future. “Dissident Right” is not positive, descriptive, visionary, or anything really. I sounds whiney and nebulous.First, our name absolutely has to have the word “white” in it. I’m not going to waste space arguing for this point either.Secondly, its got to explain that we seek a strong nation for ourselves. “Nationalist” and “Separatist” both do this. I have a slight preference for “nationalist” because it implies that we strive for one culture, and captures our belief that not only is racial diversity destructive, but multiculturalism is destructive also, even among people of the same race.I don’t like “Supremacist” because it implies that we want to declare that we are the “best,” or that we want to rule other races. I think most of us don’t want anything to do with the darker races, even as slaves or subjects. And personally, I think that northeast Asians are smarter at logical thinking (not creative thinking). So “supremacist” is out for me.

I agree with Derbyshire that “race realism” is an incredibly important concept that we should work to spread and make mainstream, but it only describes our scientific views of the human species. It is not a political blueprint that expresses our goals.

While I am an atheist, a capitalist, and a non-interventionist on foreign policy, I believe we should leave room for disagreement between ourselves on these points. Our name doesn’t need to be too descriptive to exclude labor union supporters or evangelicals or whatever.

I’d love to hear more suggestions.

razorrare

Who are we? The “Dissident Right?”

James Edwards of Political Cesspool likes The “Dispossessed Majority.”

So do I.

Anonymous

Same here. I am a seperatist. I don’t want to get into all the “Well, our race is better at this” or “their race is better at that” or “they work harder than such and such race”, etc. I don’t care. I don’t wish to rule over others, but wish for us to be seperate and free to be around whites only. If there are blacks and whites and other races who want to mix, fine. Let them be free to, but let them live in a different area and subscribe to those rules. Let blacks who wish to only be around blacks do so. Let whites who only wish to be around whites do so. etc, etc, etc

http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

When I hear white ‘conservatives’ rip on whites, on Southerners…

Oh, you mean these people who will remain nameless?

1. He was born and raised on Long Island, calls everyone a “great American,” including the radical white-hating blacks he has on his shows, but has nothing but scorn for white Southerners. Even though his first radio gig was in Huntsville, Alabama and his radio career gained momentum in Atlanta. If left to his native New York, he would have probably never gotten as much as a toe through any radio station door.

2. The other one was born and raised in Philadelphia. He now lives in northern Virginia, because Philly was too liberal for his lame brand of “conservatism.” He now has a radio show where his voice which sounds like Groucho Marx’s grandmother after a hysterectomy can be heard five days a week, three hours a day. In spite of living in territory that was part of the Confederacy, he, too, hates white Southerners, even though in blue wave election years, white Southerners are the only people that vote for his precious Republican Party.

And these two nameless people are good friends, and often appear on each other’s shows. Both of them need to learn the proverbial lesson about not defecating where they expect to eat.

StivD

Racial conservative, but not necessarily conservative racialist. That would mean mostly conservative on racial matters.

White advocate.

John McNeill

I call myself an American white nationalist, since white America is my national identity. This puts me at arms length from generic white nationalism which simply embraces a pan-white nationalist identity across the world that I don’t agree or identify with. American white nationalism is simply ethnonationalism for white Americans. I generally support rightist causes, but the preservation of white American culture, identity, and genes is my primary cause, and thus I consider myself a nationalist first and a conservative second.

Mark Schmidt

Sorry. Opposing miscegenation has to be the cornerstone of any white nationalist ideology.

My vote is for white communitarian as people like us would like to live in a community populated by and for the benefit of white people. With that said I think there should be some pragmatism about who is allowed to live in this community. Personally I agree with the opinion of Charles de Gaulle who believed that France should be French, non-whites would be allowed in France but they had to remain a small minority in order to preserve the integrity of the French people. I think that the Japanese have it right. Keep the nation as homogenous as possible, perhaps 90%+ white, allow outsiders to do business, but never give citizenship to an outsider.

If not then pro-white or white separatist.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J2K5ZMDFMZJXXOIIFMPG2A55KQ Timothy J

I have lived in Asia. These countries let the right people in. Business people, engineers, teachers, and doctors. I personally don’t have a problem with allowing a limited number of people in who have value to work and can contribute to advancement. You will never see foreigners have any political influence in Japan, China, or South Korea. Foreigners do have rights in these places; however, they use the proper term for them…”guests”.

“White Supremacist” is me. I have NO Problem declaring Facts and the Fact is, The White Peoples Created and Gave More than ALL the Races combined. That qualifies The White Peoples in my White Supremacist but humble Opinion, as being Superior.

As for your hoses, pick handles, dogs and segregated counters, yeah, that was just the worse thing in the history of the world now wasn’t it? Seems to me, that was NOTHING compared to what non-whites have done to White People both here and all over the World for how long now has it been?

dark thoughts – What’s that? The want for Segregation of the Races?
Nationalist – Now you’ve done turned stupid. The White Peoples didn’t fall from the sky and land on non-white land. The White Peoples do indeed have NATIVE Countries and that’s where the Nationalism comes into play. This includes America. Indians didn’t create America, White Men did but if we’re gonna get technical, Europeans, at the bare minimum, should be completely and wholly, Nationalistic.kirk – Huh? How can you be Patriotic without being Nationalistic? The two go literally, hand in hand. You simply cannot be one without feeling the other.

what else have we got – Oh c’mon now! We have each other. Excuse me, I meant, we should have each other. Who cares about a name? We are supposed to be White and Proud dammit! Bottom line, if non-whites can be ethnically Proud, so can The White Peoples so whatever White People call themselves, it’s all Welcome. Looky here, if a white person feels uncomfortable at a show of Pride, they’re not White and why waste time on people who will rip you to shreds for doing nothing but what their beloved non-whites do?

new name – How about American? If not that, how about, United Americans or United or White Pride or Guilt Free White Boys or The White Club or Cracker Club or White Rights or White Survival or Founding Fathers’ Followers how’s ’bout just plain ‘ole American?

I choose American because for me, it means True Conservatism, Republicanism and just plain ‘ole Americanism.

mikejones91

How about Americans? You never hear non-whites refer to themselves as only that. Asians do sometimes as they are much more compatible with whites but blacks/hispanics, forget about it.

http://profile.yahoo.com/I6C3OEQZ6SWTRE5WZAZR2BA5OY BO

You could always baffle them with obscure historical references:

‘Lindberg Patriots’

Celestial_Time

“Another term I like is `Populist Right`. Sounds warm and positive and
allows you to encompass the whole range of `conservative` issues, rather
than just race.”

And there lies the problem with the whole Right/Left conundrum: Just getting people to come together for a single premise involving race as a core element is extremely difficult. Nevertheless, here’s a supposed model of unification that skips over the core issue of race, just so it can “encompass a whole range of issues” not related to race.

This is why Conservatives and “The Right” are absolutely horrible at inventing new vehicles for change and inspiring people.

http://eradica.wordpress.com/ Firepower

We MUST name ourselves
the MAJORITY that
does NOTHING
but blog

Mark Schmidt

Two reasons why true white nationalists should be disgusted with John Derbyshire:

1. He imported a non-white to this country and multiplied with her.

2. He is a rabid supporter of those who have caused whites all over the world a lot of bother for a very long time. You know who I am speaking of.

Celestial_Time

The multinational corporations?

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J2K5ZMDFMZJXXOIIFMPG2A55KQ Timothy J

I agree…it’s a hearts and minds battle. We have to walk different people down different roads when discussing these issue. I agree with a lot of things people have said about nationalism, supremacy, and separatism. It’s great to discuss online, but when out in the world we have to tread light before we use the harder terms. It’s not always what you say, but how you say it.

I respect the man or woman out there who can proudly say I’m a white nationalist, supremacist, or separatist, and does not care about the consequences. Many of us would be ostracized by our peer groups. A lot of people in these groups are the people that who in the back of their minds agree with our views. It’s important that we don’t turn them of with harsh words that they’re programmed to tune out.

I thin Patriot is becoming a bad word for our enemies…in the sense that the left or blacks hears it and they think, “raycess”. It works in so many ways…

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J2K5ZMDFMZJXXOIIFMPG2A55KQ Timothy J

Once east Asians have a method, they’re smart and efficient. I think they need us to develop things for them to prefect. In my experience they’re very dogmatic thinkers, but also very adaptable to their environment.

I completely agree and I sure hate to be a downer here BUT, I cannot help but feel that there is no way in hell this is going to be fixed and I feel that way because I believe God said right will be wrong and wrong will be right. We’re there. The only thing I see coming is War.

Our Politicians, all of them, are Traitors as are a number of white people too. They love to talk about the Economy yet they never talk about Immigration. Immigration is literally, tied to everything. They ignore it on purpose because their goal is to destroy us. Non-whites are very easy to control but we are not.

You can’t find a White Town or White Country to save your life and it’s how they want it. Water us down, water us down and water us down and then we’re gone. No more White People to Vote them out, no one to question their motives/actions and no more need to pretend they have Ethics and Morals.

StivD

A certain class of whites are responsible for this, that’s for certain. Some are total traitors and some were completely indifferent to the rest of the white population.

anarchyst

Not only a certain “class” but a certain “ethnic/cultural/atheistic cabal” is responsible for the debasement and destruction of white culture . . .

Uh, that’s racist! I said to my sister some time ago that if non-whites can be Proud, so can I. We don’t talk anymore. Isn’t that funny? She has no problem with non-whites declaring their non-white pride but me, I’m a “racist”.

Peter

We should simply use Whites!

Our larger foes, those of the internationalist bent, have their own religion, language, culture and even their own Nation in the sands of the Middle East. They use their religion as a self-determiner and probably giggle as they watch us flail about. We should NEVER allow them to define us as it allows them to frame the debate.

Use White. It is simple, effective, incorporates all the differences of opinion within our ranks yet allows us to move forward for White interests and is malleable enough to be flexible as the situation grows. I have had great success when debating someone and they try the “You sound like the KKK” or “you sound like a White Supremacist” and I look right in their eyes and say back, “No man, I am White and Whites have interests as a people.”

Don’t say: “Oh, no I am not a White Supremest, I am a…”

The moment you start apologizing or denying “I’m not racist but…” Or “I’m not a White Supremest but…” trying to shave meaning you have already lost. He has framed the debate that some interests of the White race are illegitimate from the get go. Take the battle to the enemy. “I am White and Whites have their own interests as a People…..”.

As Patton said, “Attack, Attack, Attack!”

Or Leonidas: “Give them nothing, but take from them, Everything.”

http://independent-british-nationalist.blogspot.com/ British Activism

I am not sure how able I am to answer your question! It is a rather strange situation here, perhaps because we are more densely populated than much of the United States.

(I cannot remember the statistic or state, but it went along the lines of our population of 62 Million or so being squashed into one state like Texas, lol).

There is still the rural/city difference here though, but it does not seem to follow any particular pattern.

I suppose it depends where you are, how vast the place is, how many live there, and what kinds of “enrichment” is taking hold.

It can range from peoples eyes being out on stalks as they visit an “enriched” town for the first time and not believing how odd it is to see more ethnic minorities than whites. They will know about it, or have seen pictures of the cities, but may not be familiar with being physically in it for too long a period)….

…to that of being “extremely liberal” about it and through not having any experience of what it is like to live somewhere like that, subscribe to the “we are all the same” kinds of mantra and have “puppy dog eyes” for ethnic minorities and the “vibrancy” or whatever garbage they usually come out with.

I suppose it gets back to the “contact theory” principle. Liberals argue that if only we got to know and be more “familiar” with “change” we would not object to them, or it, so much.

To many in the suburbs and cities that is half true. But at the same time, we have occasions where people move away from the “enrichment” precisely because of the “contact theory” and “familiarity” they have experienced!

There is a sense of “having to rise above it all” by people in the cities too. A kind of high-and-mighty “it does not matter” or “this is cosmopolitan and we are all in it together” attitude as though they are better than everybody else who doesn’t like it. It is a kind of psychology or mindset I suppose.

Then, to stereotype there are the “English Defence League” types, who are “working class” (blue collar in American terms?). Hard living, hard drinking, rough and tumble, boots on the street types who are perhaps not nationalists or ‘white pride’ minded, but do not like what is going on for other reasons, or are kind of “patriots” and do not mind the ethnic-factor, but do not like the “culture” factor or “financial” factors.

Yet, out of that same class are often women with mixed-race offspring, school friends being black or asian-subcontinent, etc. You cannot really pin it down.

Some of the posher or “upper middle classes” don’t tend to live anywhere near it. Not always “white flight”, but a combination of wealth gravitating them to better areas, set off from historically poorer ethnic minorities who could never afford to live in those areas. Those times are changing though.

Those people are generally not interested either way. Apathy. Some will loathe the changes going on, some will thrust themselves into it and be all happy-clappy.

One of the problems we seem to have developing here, is that the ethnics are spread out across various parts of England. Birmingham, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Luton, London, etc, but in “concentrated groups”. This may make it much harder to balkanise or concede territory.

If there was a “border” type situation and they were creeping over and it was all down one end of the landmass, it would be more feasible to partition it off and vow to never let it happen again.

But, as a British Nationalist, there will be no concession or balkanisation of Britain in those terms. It is not acceptable to us even as a suggestion. This is our homeland and we intend to keep the entirety of it, despite vast chunks of it already being utterly transformed.

If you want to be thoroughly depressed, or just more informed of what things are getting to be like here, why not check out my documentary of ‘current affairs’ in modern Britain, that catalogues a lot of the damaging stuff…… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFCHeJEBZHo